 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to joe94395
Re: What more needs to be said? said by joe94395:I think it's a problem with too much regulation. Why can't I start my own cellular provider and compete with these guys? I can't. They government has regulations in place that would prevent me from even dreaming of doing so.
Nope. It's AT&T and Verizon preventing you. They use their roaming/peering agreements to make sure that you must go through them at inflated prices. You have the choice of helping them dominate and making them tons of money while having very little for your own company.... *OR* you must build out your entire network of towers to cover the nation from scratch because they will prevent or penalize your company so that your customers can't roam on their towers at a reasonable price. They behave very anti-competitively on towers and backhaul.
Secondly, they defeat the FCC's efforts to create competition by gaming the spectrum auctions and squatting on bandwidth just to make sure it's scarce for competitors.
It's not over regulation. It's lack of sufficient regulation.
Recently Cable MSO's and others have tried to get into this market, and even with their financial muscle and customer base, they quickly saw the writing on the wall and acquiesced. It's also suspected that Dish Network's plans will falter as well.
The situation in the USA is truly beyond compare.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| I disagree. The answer is not more regulation. If you shifted responsibility for spectrum allocation from the national to a more local level like state or county you would create a situation where smaller competitors could get a start. Having the ability for a company to outbid everyone on a national level is anti-competitive and adding more regulations is just going to make it more so.
They can put out one big fire and prevent competition pretty easily on the national level but if you reduced the market size for spectrum to a smaller area it would be nearly impossible for companies like Verizon or AT&T to always win every spectrum auction in every locality. Investment groups would be able to target more profitable areas like certain cities and then grow their network from there. It would put the necessary spectrum investment within the reach of investors. Shrink the role of the federal government and shift the power of spectrum allocation to smaller areas.
The federal government does not have the ability to create competition, they can only limit it through increases in regulation. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I think you are underestimating the resourcefulness of the incumbents... it would hardly be impossible for them to win every auction at local levels. They would simply set up spectrum affiliates in each market and still be able to outbid everyone. One thing you have to realize is that if you reduce the size of a spectrum footprint, you also have to reduce the cost of that footprint or no company would be able to stay in business. So, if you are thinking they couldn't afford to buy all spectrum in all markets, I assure you they would. Any small company that ended up with spectrum Verizon wanted would simply be sued out of existence. That's not to say that cell spectrum allocation wouldn't work at a local level but I don't think it would have the effect you think it will.
I agree with KrK, we need more regulation on big business, not less. Regulations certainly DO create more competition, it is business that eliminates it... that's why they hate regulation so much and spend billions lobbing to get rid of it. We need stronger Anti-trust laws and regulatory agencies that have the interest of the public and small business in mind rather than simply rubber-stamping everything that goes past their desks. |
|
